> What is the legal definition of genocide?
> The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part
Note that it only requires intent, it doesn’t require the population to be completely annihilated
Seems like you’d just wait until all Palestinians are dead and only then be like “oh well, now we can call it a genocide”
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha...
Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it.
Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender.
Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment.
If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure
Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
The humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population extends beyond immediate casualties. The long-term effects of the blockade on Gaza, restrictions on movement, and economic hardships cannot be overlooked. These factors contribute to a broader context of suffering and human rights issues.
In discussing moral failings, it's essential to recognize the complexities and nuances of this conflict. The focus should be on seeking solutions that prioritize the protection of all civilians, uphold human rights, and work towards a just and sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The sanctity of human life must be the cornerstone of any military strategy, and efforts towards peace must include addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring accountability, and respecting international laws and human rights for all parties involved.
While I generally agree with the sentiment here, it's one of those where the tradeoff is in Israel's lives, versus those of Palestinians under Hamas rule. We could argue about the ratios here, but at the end of the day, I do believe that it's perfectly reasonable for a country to prioritize it's own losses, over those of an enemy nation's. When it crosses the line is largely a matter of opinion, rather than any rigorous principle.
Of particular note,
> Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas.
This has a specific carve out for the exact case which you speak of. If the civilian area is used for military operations then, by international law, it's now a permitted target. The reason is obvious: To do otherwise would make civilian areas a shield and encourage further use of them for military use. As long as Hamas continues to use them as such, they will continue to, by international law, be legitimate targets. (there are other catches, and it doesn't mean one man with a gun in a hospital means you can blow the whole thing up.)
As for the bit on morality, that was largely in response to the implication that the moral failings were largely Israel's. In the end, this is war, and there are often few "good guys" in war. But while morality is largely the domain of the victor, the rules are not nearly as directly set. From what I've seen, Israel appears to be far more in line with the rules of war than Hamas. That Hamas has not managed to achieve high civilian kill counts is not for lack of trying, but instead for lack of ability. Their "lower impact" should not be taken as any form of moral high ground.
And that’s exactly what Israel is doing to Palestinians
Many government officials, including Netanyahu, have openly made genocidal statements, like calling Palestinians Amalek, calling them sub-human/animals, saying there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and calling for leveling the place, not to mention the thousands of bombs dropped, the insane number of civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed
Seems like some people will wait until all Palestinians are killed and then say, oh I guess it was genocide
Maybe Israel doesn’t want to directly kill 2+ million people, but they are sure trying to get rid of them. They are: 1) killing and displacing them, 2) making it insanely hard for them to live in Gaza (destroying hospitals, schools, parks, government buildings, etc) and 3) pushing for neighboring countries to take them as refugees
And if Israel get away with it, the West Bank will be next (I mean they are already on it)
> What is the legal definition of genocide?
> The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part
Note that it only requires intent, it doesn’t require the population to be completely annihilated
Lots of current Israel government officials have openly called for the destruction of Gaza, have called Palestinians sub-human/animals, have said there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and even Netanyahu said Palestinians were Amalek, which is whistle blowing for genocide
The intent is pretty clear, in the open, in recorded public speeches and interviews